[Ccpdp-rm] NOTES | ccPDP Review Mechanism Working Group | 10 November 2021 (20:00 UTC)

[Joke Braeken]

NOTES | ccPDP Review Mechanism Working Group | 10 November 2021 (20:00 UTC)

1.  Welcome

Welcome by Chair Stephen Deerhake

2.  Administrative matters

Stephen referred to the upcoming public comment regarding ccPDP3-RET
Bernie produced a next version of the document

3.  Non-binding mechanism document (continue)

Comments from the previous call, and Eberhard’s comments to the list, after the call, were integrated in the document.
BT3: broken up in 2 bullets.

BT4: reasonable
Stephen: any comments on this?
Eberhard: can live with the “who pays” mechanism
Bernie: plaintiff section. Administrator can accept or refuse. Rightful concern raised by Eberhard.
Allan: comment regarding “the administrator”
Some issues. E.g. notion of “not conflicted”
A former cTLD manager could qualify? If so, we need to clarify it. That person could be conflicted.
Where the administrator takes a decision to take a case, would the applicant think the administrative decision was not just?
Bernie: fairly standard in all administration panel to have this function. Not meant to bar someone that had been a ccTLD manager. Clear how that goes. As for the appeal: we will need to talk about it. Do we want to have an appeal? Binary conditions: in that case there is no point.
Eberhard: not sure about the non-conflict. Appeal to appeal: proportions. If we write down what this means. Administrator does not judge substance.
Bernie: clearly defined set of binary positions. No grey zone. The elements will be public too.

BT6
Bernie: in line with previous point

>>> The IFO
Bernie: how will people know? Will the iana post preliminary decisions? Some of these things are very sensitive. New text in red. More conservative suggestion. Only the people concerned can appeal.

>>> The plaintiff
Eberhard: affects ccnso members and non members alike.
Kim: not sure why a new ccTLD delegation would be a unique situation in this regard. Do those that have received a negative decision by iana are eligible?
Eberhard: current situation ongoing. Everyone can apply for a transfer. It is about decisions that affect ccTLD managers. Third parties must take other paths.
Bernie: spreadsheet. Transfer: we agreed that on a consented transfer the current manager is agreeing. The current process has standing to appeal. The party that was supposed to receive the transfer does not have standing. In case of a new delegation, there is no cctld manager
Kim: if certain appeals are excluded, please make this explicit
Bernie: this is called consolidation. The rules: long, or even longer than the policy we talk about here. Lots of details and issues. Bernie proposes to remove that issue. Only applies in 1 case. He will propose some text, for discussion at the next meeting
See first bullet IFO. IFO communicating with all concerned parties. Plaintiff may only apply etc..
That does not concord. Will need to be adjusted. See lower in doc. Draft on what that meant.
Peter: maybe not, the panel could just decide the decision to delegate to A was wrong and refer back to the process without actually picking a “winner”
Bernie: top of doc. Preliminary decisions. RFC1591. By defining things properly, i see no issue
Bart: See also the underlying issue paper ( referenced in the Charter): Standing at review mechanism
1. Who will have standing at a review mechanism?
Some members in the community argue that only the [incumbent] ccTLD manager should have standing. Others have argued, at least raised, the point that potentially other parties should have standing, in particular parties with a significant interest.
As noted above, according RFC 1591 the Internet DNS Names Review Board (IDNB), a committee established by the IANA, will act as a review panel for cases in which the parties [emphasis added] can not reach agreement among themselves. The IDNB’s decisions will be binding. This seem to imply that others then the ccTLD manager may have standing.

BT10
Bernie: the text was clear enough. But new text is proposed to clarify what Eberhard was commenting on
Eberhard: In that I find myself rereading the Charter and find that an interpretation inserted by the Issue Manager with regards to Significantly Interested Parties is not acceptable
Raises concerns that might oblige him to resign
Stephen suggests to take it offline and discuss
Bart: I am sorry this was the charter as adopted by the Council and referenced with the call for volunteers and included in the Issue Manager
Eberhard: Whether it was accepted by Council, and/ir eferenced in a call for volunteers does not matter to me, as it is wrong, and hence must be corrected.

BT11
Proposed text in new version.

5.  AOB

none

6.  Next meetings

24 November

Thank you all. Bye



Joke Braeken
ccNSO Policy Advisor
joke.braeken at icann.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccpdp-rm/attachments/20211110/09c7a1ac/attachment-0001.html>